Over the past decade, international
organizations have increasingly recognized the importance of inclusive peace
processes and political transitions in countries ravaged by violent conflict.
Rather than investing all efforts in the elite-level, “Track 1”
negotiations, peacebuilding actors—including the European Union (EU)—have
focused energy along the whole spectrum of actors from governments and elite
actors to the grass roots. Emblematic of the so-called “Whole-of-Society” (WOS)
approach to peacebuilding and conflict prevention adopted by the EU, this
inclusivity is especially concerned with incorporating the voices of a wide
range of actors who may have historically been marginalized—a shift in focus that
reflects an acknowledgement that exclusion can act as a major driver of violent
conflict.

In 2009, the EU committed itself to
inclusivity in its various mediation and dialogue efforts. This research aims
to determine, almost ten years later, the extent to which the EU is actually
living up to this commitment to inclusive peacebuilding. In particular, in
light of the tension between inclusivity and effectiveness, how do EU actors
“seek to overcome this dilemma when promoting, supporting or facilitating mediation
and dialogue processes in third countries”? To respond to these questions, the
authors draw on case study reports, secondary literature, and interviews with
EU staff members to analyze two recent cases where the EU has been actively
engaged in peacebuilding and conflict prevention activities: Georgia and Yemen.

Despite scholarly debate over the
definition of “inclusivity,” it can be broadly understood to comprise two
levels: inter-elite inclusion (of all the “key stakeholders who have the
capacity to implement and/or spoil peace and who represent important
constituencies”) and broader societal inclusion (of those who have been
marginalized or who have “limited resources…[or] influence…”). On the one hand,
greater inclusion is seen to benefit the legitimacy and sustainability of peace
agreement outcomes. On the other, however, greater inclusion could instead make
it much harder to reach an agreement in the first place, with a greater number
of parties to satisfy. Furthermore, there is the crucial issue of whether those
“included” actually have the capacity for their participation to be meaningful.
In light of these concerns, peacebuilding actors must develop “inclusive
enough” approaches that “enable a genuine participatory process without
impeding the efficiency of decision-making.” Three such approaches identified
by the authors include: 1) inclusive national dialogues with mechanisms for
efficient decision-making, 2) capacity-building support for marginalized
groups, 3) and coordination/feedback between different “tracks.”

Turning to the case studies, the
authors examine how and to what extent the EU addresses this
“inclusivity/effectiveness dilemma” in its peacebuilding activities. In Georgia,
the EU is directly involved in Track 1 mediation efforts through various
initiatives. However, even though this involvement is important for preventing
a re-escalation of the conflict, it is largely seen as an “exclusionary and
elitist” process. On the Track 2 level, the EU provides a communication
channel between different actors, consults with civil society organizations and
attempts to elevate their voices to the Track 1 level, and coordinates
“technical” problem-solving workshops. With regards to Track 3, the EU
funds “grassroots dialogue initiatives” to create “contacts across conflict
divides.”

Track 1: “official discussions between high-level governmental and military leaders focusing on ceasefires, peace talks, treaties and other agreements…[and] typically limited to a small number of national stakeholders…”

Track 2: “unofficial dialogue and problem-solving activities aimed at building relationships between civil society leaders and influential individuals who have the ability to impact the official level dynamics through lobbying, advocacy or consultation channels.”

Meanwhile, Yemen is still in the
midst of civil war and an on-going Saudi-led military intervention. The EU has
not directly mediated this conflict but rather supported a national dialogue
process—the National Dialogue Conference (NDC)—which took place from March 2013
to January 2014. It emerged as a result of talks spearheaded by the EU and
others after popular protests challenged President Saleh’s rule in 2011 and was
intended to lay the groundwork for a new constitution. The NDC was conceived as
an inclusive process, with quotas for underrepresented groups, and the EU’s
role was to advocate and conduct outreach to ensure that this broad inclusion
became a reality, especially through capacity-building work with youth and
women’s organizations. Beyond this formal process, the EU supported Track 2
efforts by providing a “neutral space” for dialogue between stakeholders and
maintained communication channels between parties, even after the Saudi
military intervention began in 2015. At Track 2 and 3 levels, the EU sponsored
local dialogues, “dialogue platforms for civil society representatives,” and
“two grassroots inter-community projects” focused on reconciliation and
capacity-building, among other concerns.

In both Yemen and in Georgia, the
EU’s attempts to make its mediation and dialogue efforts “inclusive enough”
achieved only partial success. In short, the authors found that “there is still
a significant gap between the policy expectations for a WOS approach to
mediation and dialogue support and the realities on the ground.” An overarching
challenge in both cases was the lack of effective mechanisms for strengthening
input across levels (Tracks 1, 2, and 3), as well as difficulties associated
with reaching certain groups and ensuring their meaningful participation, often
due to geopolitical and/or cultural pressures. Although these inclusive
mediation and dialogue approaches have not yet fostered meaningful conflict
transformation in either Georgia or Yemen, the authors suggest that perhaps
these approaches should still be pursued for their own sake, even if they have
not yet met with full success.

Contemporary Relevance

After over three years of civil war
in Yemen, including a prolonged military intervention by Saudi-led (and
U.S.-supported) forces that has not hesitated to target civilians, thousands of
people have died and millions more face death from famine or disease caused by
the distraction of the country’s infrastructure and health services. The
international community is concerned that recent fighting in the city of
Hudaydah could jeopardize humanitarian aid shipments to the country. In this
context, the main parties recently agreed to UN-mediated talks in Sweden, which
will focus mostly on humanitarian issues and confidence-building measures
rather than a full-fledged political settlement. This Track 1 process is far
from the inclusive (or even “inclusive enough”) ideal discussed in the above
research, though one could argue that the dire humanitarian situation requires
only that the process be efficient and effective, with as few stakeholders present
as are necessary to stop the fighting. When the time comes for a more
comprehensive political settlement, the country can build on its 2013-2014
National Dialogue Conference to craft an agreement that takes account of the
human toll this war has taken on its citizens.

Talking Points

Peacebuilding actors who wish to promote inclusive peace
processes must contend with the tension between the legitimacy and
sustainability benefits of inclusivity, on one hand, and the challenges
inclusivity poses for reaching any settlement at all, on the other.

Three approaches to “inclusive enough” peace processes
include: 1) inclusive national dialogues with mechanisms to facilitate
efficient decision-making, 2) capacity-building support for marginalized
groups so that their participation in negotiation processes is more
meaningful, 3) attention to and coordination/feedback between different
“tracks.”

The EU is committed to inclusivity in its
mediation and dialogue efforts, but their work in Yemen and Georgia shows there
is room for improvement, especially with regards to the lack of effective
mechanisms for strengthening input across levels (Tracks 1, 2, and 3), as well
as difficulties associated with reaching certain groups and ensuring their
meaningful participation.

Practical Implications

Intuitively, we know that for peace
to be sustainable, an elite-level Track 1 agreement ultimately needs to be
grounded in—and reinforced by—dialogue and reconciliation work at the
grassroots level, lest animosities stoked by the violent conflict simply
resurface to break the meticulously worded agreement. Although inclusive peace
processes make sense, however, they do come with challenges. The authors’
analysis of EU mediation and dialogue efforts in Georgia and Yemen highlight a
few key areas of focus for improved “inclusive enough” peace processes more
generally. First, a central task for peacebuilders is to craft mechanisms that
can effectively link the different peacebuilding “tracks,” such that concerns
that surface at the grassroots Track 3 level, for instance, can inform
problem-solving workshops at Track 2 or even political negotiations at Track 1.
Second, peacebuilders must always look beyond “quantitative” inclusion—that
quotas are filled, for instance—to “qualitative” inclusion—that people from
marginalized groups actually have the capacity to participate in dialogue and
negotiations in meaningful and influential ways. An important question to ask
is, what is blocking meaningful participation, and what can be done to take
that barrier away? For example, when substantial internal disagreement exists
within a group, internal negotiations may be needed first, so that the group
can develop and identify a unified position and present a more powerful voice
in negotiations. (See the previous analysis in this issue on Ramsbotham and
Schiff’s “strategic negotiation” approach.) Third, peacebuilders must look
beyond the immediate configuration of local stakeholders to consider the role
that powerful neighboring countries may be playing in the conflict and perhaps
in hampering efforts to transform it—by, for instance, limiting the ability of
certain groups to participate in the peace process in meaningful ways.

Popular Posts

01

02

03

Social

Testimonials

Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D.

The field of peace science has long suffered from a needless disconnect between current scholarship and relevant practice. The Peace Science Digest serves as a vital bridge. By regularly communicating cutting-edge peace research to a general audience, this publication promises to advance contemporary practice of peace and nonviolent action. I don’t know of any other outlet that has developed such an efficient forum for distilling the key insights from the latest scholarly innovations for anyone who wants to know more about this crucial subject. I won’t miss an issue.

-Erica Chenoweth: Professor, Associate Dean for Research at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver

David Cortright, Ph.D.

The Peace Science Digest is a valuable tool for translating scholarly research into practical conclusions in support of evidence-based approaches to preventing armed conflict.

-David Cortright: Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

Ambassador John W. McDonald, ret.

This Magazine is where the academic field and the practitioners meet. It is the ideal source for the Talkers, the Writers and the Doers who need to inform and educate themselves about the fast growing field of Peace Science for War Prevention Initiatives!

Kelly Cambell

As a longtime peace activist, I’ve grown weary of the mainstream perception that peace is for dreamers. That’s why the Peace Science Digest is such as useful tool; it gives me easy access to the data and the science to make the case for peacebuilding and war prevention as both practical and possible. This is a wonderful new resource for all who seek peaceful solutions in the real world.

Michael Nagler

We must welcome the expansion of peace awareness into any and every area of our lives, in most of which it must supplant the domination of war and violence long established there. The long-overdue and much appreciated Digest is filling an important niche in that peace invasion. No longer will anyone be able to deny that peace is a science that can be studied and practiced.

-Michael Nagler: Founder and President, Metta Center for Nonviolence

Aubrey Fox

The Peace Science Digest is the right approach to an ever-present challenge: how do you get cutting-edge peace research that is often hidden in hard-to-access academic journals into the hands of a broader audience? With its attractive on-line format, easy to digest graphics and useful short summaries, the Peace Science Digest is a critically important tool for anyone who cares about peace as well as a delight to read.

Joseph Bock, Ph.D.

How many times are we asked about the effectiveness of alternatives to violent conflict? Reading Peace Science Digest offers a quick read on some of the best research focused on that important question. It offers talking points and summarizes practical implications. Readers are provided with clear, accessible explanations of theories and key concepts. It is a valuable resource for policy-makers, activists and scholars. It is a major step in filling the gap between research findings and application.

-Joseph Bock: International Conflict Management Program Associate Professor of International Conflict Management, Kennesaw State University

Eric Stoner

The distillation of the latest academic studies offered by the Peace Science Digest is not only an invaluable time-saving resource for scholars and policymakers concerned with preventing the next war, but for journalists and organizers on the front lines, who can put their findings to good use as they struggle to hold the powerful accountable and to build a more just and peaceful world.

-Eric Stoner: Co-founder and Editor, Waging Nonviolence

Mark Freeman

The Peace Science Digest is a major contribution to the peace and security field. It makes complex issues more understandable, enabling professional outfits like ours to be more effective in our global work. The Digest underscores that preventing war is about more than good intentions or power; it is also about transferable knowledge and science.

Maria J. Stephan, Ph.D.

The Digest is smartly organized, engaging, and provides a nice synthesis of key research on conflict, war, and peace with practical and policy relevance. The journal’s emphasis on “contemporary relevance”, “talking points” and “practical implications” is a breath of fresh air for those of us trying to bridge the academic-policy-practitioner divides. Highly recommended reading.

-Maria J. Stephan: Senior Advisor, United States Institute of Peace

David Swanson

Peace Science Digest is an invaluable tool for advocates for peace, as much as for educators. In it one quickly finds the talking points needed to persuade others, and the research to back those points up.